COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHRI GURU GOVIND SINGH INTER COLLEGE BAREILLY AND Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dismissing the appellants writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 13.7.1998 passed by the first respondent whereby the order of District Inspector of Schools attesting the signature of petitioner No. 2 was set aside post-fixed with a direction to attest the signature of 3rd respondent Surjeet Singh as Manager of the Institution.

(2.) The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated thus : The 3rd respondent Surjeet Singh was elected Manager of the Committee of Management on 8.5.1996 of Sri Guru Govind Singh Inter College. Govind Nagar (Model Town), Bareilly which is an institution recognised under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the affairs of which are managed by a Committee of Management constituted under the approved scheme of administration and his signature was attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 24.6.1996. Subsequently, a representation was made to the District Inspector of Schools that the 3rd respondent resigned from the office of the Manager on 15.8.1997 and his resignation had been accepted by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 10.12.1997 in which the 2nd petitioner-appellant, Kamal Jeet Singh was elected/appointed as Manager of the Institution, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of the second petitioner-appellant on 17.1.1998. Subsequently, on a representation being made by Surjeet Singh, the District Inspector of Schools acting upon a resolution dated 7.5.1998 allegedly passed by Committee of Management attested the signature of the 3rd respondent on 18.6.1998 without giving any notice to the 2nd petitioner appellant. The District Inspector of Schools, however, cancelled the order dated 18.6.1998 and again attested the signature of the second petitioner-appellant vide order dated 25.6.1998 on a representation of the President. The 3rd respondent then represented his case before the Joint Director, who by order dated 13.7.1998 set aside the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 18.6.1998 and directed, vide order dated 13.7.1998, the District Inspector of Schools to re-attest the signature of the 3rd respondent. Consequently, his signatures were attested on 16.7.1998. The petitioner-appellant then preferred the writ petition for quashing the orders dated 13.7.1998 and 16.7.1998. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge by the order dated 10th August, 1998.

(3.) We have heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners-appellants and Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel representing the third respondent. The thrust of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the Joint Director of Education was not justified in taking an ex parte decision affecting the rights of the petitioners-appellants without any notice to them. The learned counsel submitted that the contentious issues of fact involved in the matter and raised by the third respondent ought not to have been decided without notice to the petitioner-appellants. Sri S.K. Verma repudiated the submissions of Sri R.N. Singh and submitted that in the fact-situation of the present case, it was not necessary to issue notice to the petitioners-appellants and the learned single Judge has rightly held so.